User talk:PGNormand

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome!

Hello, PGNormand, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  ALR 21:49, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Albert Pike and "Inner Sanctuary"

Hi PGNormand,

I have been working on the article Catholicism and Freemasonry - making sure the masonic side of the issue is fairly represented and debunking some of the more outrageous misinterpretations. There is a section on Catholic problems with the Scottish Rite, that includes the old chessnut about trampling papal tiaras in the Knights Kaddosh degree. I have been able to demonstrate that this was not part of Pike's original ritual revisions (as printed in "Magnus Opus" available through Kessinger Publishing). Unfortunately, one editor feels that Magnum Opus is not enough to definitively debunk the allegation. He points to the fact that the 1917 Catholic Encyclopedia quotes from something it claims Pike wrote in the 1870s called "Inner Sanctuary" and he thinks this may be a later revision that does contain trampling etc. I have not been able to find a copy of this book.

I know you are quite knowledgable about the Scottish Rite, so I have come to you for explanation and advice... Can you tell me anything about "Inner Sanctuary"? Does it contain the Scottish Rite ritual that was in place in the 1870s? If not, what was it? And do you know where I can obtain a copy (for example, should I contact the House of the Temple)?

Fraternally, Blueboar 14:04, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Quickbar

I don't know what's pointing you to a "quickbar", but the usual way to move pages is by clicking on a tab on the article page that says "Move". (A quickbar may or may not be present, based on the "skin" you've chosen). But that tab may not be available to you until you become a more experienced user (it kicks in after a number of edits). In any case, have a look at Talk:Louis de Bourbon-Conde, Comte de Clermont and see what you think. If anything, I would think this should be moved to Louis de Bourbon-Condé, Comte de Clermont (that is, it should have the accent over the "e"). Others might differ; the naming rules for articles are arcane and arbitrary :) - Nunh-huh 19:47, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reverted edit...

PG, your insertion into the the intro changed the entire sense of the paragraph, and ended up claiming York and Scottish Rites initiate non-Masons. I therefore reverted it. MSJapan 15:25, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikiproject Texas A&M

WikiProject Texas A&M

As a current or past contributor to a related article, I thought I'd let you know about WikiProject Texas A&M, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of the Texas A&M. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks and related articles. Thanks! — BQZip01 — talk 03:04, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Do What You Want To Do

The song titled "Go Where You Want To Go," written by John Phillips of "The Mamas and the Papas," was released on their first album in March 1966. The first stanza is:

You gotta go where you wanna go, Do what you wanna do With whoever you wanna do it with. You gotta go where you wanna go, And do what you wanna do With whoever you wanna do it with.

[edit] "Antients" vs. "Ancients"

While technically correct, consensus has said that we use the spelling with the "t" as a matter of differentiation. If it is in common use (as you state clearly), erroneously or not, there's no real reason to change it. I actually get more immediate and relevant hits on "Antient", and again, we are writing for a general audience, not the Masonic scholar. MSJapan 05:58, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

But its wrong. It is a fairly "common" misspelling, but only for the uninformed. This is no different than misspelling words like "recieve," or "seperate," etc. Once you know the correct spelling, you say "Oh! Gee! I just learned something," and you move on with the correct spelling. Well-informed Masonic scholars, and that is what we should all strive to be whether we are or not, do not use the misspelled version of the word. The misspelled word, "antient," does not appear in my "American Heritage Dictionary," or in the "Oxford Dictionary." Coil's Masonic Encyclopedia devotes an article to explaining the abuse of the correctly spelled word "ancient", where the misspelling arose, and when it became popular among the misinformed. The fact is, it was never used by the Ancient Grand Lodge itself!!! The misspelled version of the word certainly does not appear in anything written by Laurence Dermott, the Ancients' Grand Secretary, and does not appear in his famous "Ahimon Rezon." And only came into more common "misusage" during the 20th century -- over a hundred years after the demise of the Ancient Grand Lodge. Those that prefer it only do so because they think its "cute." But it is not. The Grand Secretary of the United Grand Lodge of England put this issue to bed in 1953 and published his findings in A.Q.C. Why would anyone want to be guilty of being the one to mislead the public, as well as the members of the Craft who read these articles, into thinking that the wrong spelling is accurate? Some history student, who knows nothing about Freemasonry, will read these articles and see the misspelled word again and again and think we are all idiots. Count me out. As I edit articles for Wikipedia, whether they are articles about Freemasonry or otherwise, I will continue to correct any misspelled words I come across. How could I, as an "editor," do otherwise? PGNormand 19:01, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

PGN -... I am not going to argue about the spelling one way or the other... but I am a little miffed that you did not explain your view of the matter on the article talk page before reverting things back. I must ask that you be a bit more communicative. Right or wrong, the "t" spelling had been settled on by the rest of us who work on the article. MSJapan pointed this out to you in his revert... If you feel strongly that our consensus is wrong, the thing to do is to go to the talk page and explain to us why it is wrong. To simply keep correcting the text smacks of your having a "I right and the rest of you are wrong, so screw you all" attitude (that is how it comes across, whether you mean it that way or not). We do not need contention in the craft, or between Wikipedia editors. TALK to us, and work with us... You will find we are always willing to listen, even when we don't fully agree. Fraternally, Blueboar 22:12, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
Did you consider that a non-knowledgeable student might think it's a peculiar archaic spelling from before English was standardized? English from that period can look a lot more like German than anything else. What I'm getting at, PG, is that even you state the misusage is common and widespread, and since WP is not a resource for scholars, but for the public, what they're going to find is "Antient" more so than "Ancient" (36,000+ hits for the former, most of which are Masonic, including other articles). When it comes down to it, I would rather have substantive content than worry about what is simply a technicality that no one would even know about without reading AQC. Now, all of that being said, I'll dig out the reference and check out the article. If I think that there's a substantive reason to change it based on the article, I'll run a poll on the Freemasonry Wikiproject, and if the consensus is there, we can change it, and it will cover everything in the whole project. MSJapan 22:51, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
So, I'm assuming that you counted all 36,000 hits to see if the majority were Masonic. Wow. I'm impressed. Are you a shut-in? -- Forget that. Let me move on. If I am following your logic: 1) since "WP is not a resource for scholars, but for the public," and 2) since you are determined to keep it that way, and 3) you consider this a mere "technicality" and not "substantive," therefore you don't feel that the ignorant, unwashed masses out there are going to know the difference. What you are saying is that the ignorant public (who are not scholars) would be unaware and therefore not interested in this point of historical fact. And by your previous posts on this topic, as well as this post, you have included yourself in that same group of uninterested non-scholars who are unaware of this "technical" point of history. Nevertheless, I cannot tell how eternally grateful I am that you are willing to take precious time out from your busy schedule (of counting all those 36,000 hits) to "run a poll" on the Freemasonry Wikiproject. You are too kind to consider this, my humble petition. PGNormand 20:36, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ancient vs. Antient - consensus please

We seem to be having a project wide revert war over whether to use "Ancient" (with a "c") or "Antient" (with a "t"). We need to hammer this out and reach a consensus, and we should do so in one central location. Since this impacts several articles, I have started a thread at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Freemasonry#Ancients vs. Antients... consensus? to be that central location. Please discuss at that thread. Thank you, Blueboar 13:39, 21 August 2007 (UTC)